I think this is delicious. The people that do this kind of thing seem to have NO IDEA how utterly awful it comes across, and how much it actually hurts their cause. I hope we have lots more of this; it's almost as entertaining as handing out lab coats to in-the-tank doctors for a photo op.

This distresses me tremendously because I know children have no concern whatsoever about health care and they shouldn't. It amounts to a form of abuse, and this abuse and has caused me to experiment making a batch of pear tartlets with Southern Comfort and buttery flakey crusts in the shape of little domes and with Southern Comfort flavored icing which ended up substituting for dinner. *hic*

"Susan Henken of Dover, Mass., wrote her own $2,300 check, and her 13-year-old son, Samuel, and 15-year-old daughter, Julia, each wrote $2,300 checks, for example. Samuel used money from his bar mitzvah and money he earned "dog sitting," and Julia used babysitting money to make the contributions, their mother said. "My children like to donate to a lot of causes. That's just how it is in my house,"

glam1931 said... I think this is delicious. The people that do this kind of thing seem to have NO IDEA how utterly awful it comes across, and how much it actually hurts their cause. I hope we have lots more of this;

Agree. I can't wait for the elevation of Obama to the status of the one perfect, saintly American schoolchildren are now conditioned to virtually worship as a Holy Man of all wisdom and Virtue....Saint Martin, himself.

That will be in 2010 and the over-honored Black Moses gets his lavish National Memorial dedicated..by The One Himself.

And we can look to schoolkids ordered to carry twin pics of the teachers Black Heroes side-by-side on their little posters of adoration, in honoring in their little song and dance numbers.

===============

Chip Ahoy - It amounts to a form of abuse, and this abuse and has caused me to experiment making a batch of pear tartlets with Southern Comfort and buttery flakey crusts in the shape of little domes and with Southern Comfort flavored icing which ended up substituting for dinner. *hic*

Chip, that doesn't sound like abuse. That sounds frikkin delicious!! As abusive as my wifes poached in brandy orchard-fresh pears flash-baked in filo dough then served with premium vanilla ice cream and drizzled with hot caramel sauce. That is abuse too! We live for such abuse!

Remember when the children sang Bush's praises at the White House after Katrina?

Is this a new thing you guys on the left are being told to do? When something this embarrassing happens, you make up a counter-example hoping that some with weaker minds and untrustworthy memories will come to believe actually happened.

I was making fun of the CNN fact check of SNL's parody and pointing out how protective CNN seems to be of Obama's reputation. I saw a couple of people say in response, "Did you object when CNN fact-checked Tina Fay's Sarah Palin parody?"

No, because I don't think that actually happened. Nor did kids sing a song praising Bush for his response to Hurrican Katrina.

Okay, seriously... school children sang special songs written praising Bush and promoting his policies?

Maybe Slim Jim can find us the lyrics.

People, including children, perform for Presidents and learn patriotic songs and all of that. SOP. No big deal. The marching band from my (next door) home town marched in the Inaugural Parade this year and I'm very proud they got chosen. It was a huge honor for a small school.

If Slim Jim comes up with the special song lyrics of the song written praising George Bush sung for him by school children I will be surprised, disgusted, and thankful that someone had the good sense not to televise it.

Actually, it is news, showing what the Obama Administration is willing to do to get their agenda passed, including getting a bunch of kids, who don't have a clue what they the words really mean, to sing blatant untruths (that are, coincidentally DNC talking points).

It just wasn't news in the same way that CNN and the White House thought it was.

I didn't see or hear anything endorsing Obama's health care plan...they were just acknowledging that reform is needed, and that reforming health care is indeed a problem for the USA. Who disagrees with that? Point me to a lyric where they endorse Obama's plan, please.

I assume you watched/listened to the video, all the way through. (If not, please, do.)

Assuming you did, you quite clearly had an entirely different reaction to a particular piece of it, the one in which President Obama was mentioned by name. In all seriousness, in a serious spirit of wanting to understand, Zach, I'm asking you to talk to me. Please, talk to me. Tell me why there's no reason to be concerned, or--since I'm actually trying not to be prescriptive, or proscriptive--set out your own reaction to kids being organized to present political messages and booked to present them on news channels.

I'm OK with your objecting to even that latter framing of mine--frame it yourself, to explain or reflect better; whatever--but please help me to understand better such a different point of view from my own.

To be clear, I deleted and reposted my most recent comment solely to correct a single, single-letter typo (which in this case was critical), which correction is highlighted in bold. Nothing else did I modify.

I have no problem with the Ron Clark Academy, it's a private school, and if they want to shove a particular viewpoint down their students throats, their parents have other options with how they choose to spend their education dollars.

If these were public school students, then this would be worth getting upset over.

Wonder if they sang a song advocating school vouchers and pushing for greater teacher accountability and less political influence for teachers' unions, would that have played on CNN?

I hope they keep doing this. Please. I need the laughs, and I can't think of a better way to discredit the whole health care reform enterprise. Pitching this propaganda to a cynical and jaded public is....wow.

There's nothing sinister about it. It's just clueless. It's almost touching in its naivete.

So, here is the big question. Which cable news network is most in the can for the Obama Administration: CNN? or MSNBC?

As noted above, Cadillac, a subsidiary of the White House, is sponsoring CNN, and Ted Turner, its founder, is a well known liberal, supporting liberal causes, even before and after his marriage to Hanoi Jane. During the Clinton Administration, it was known as the Clinton News Network, for its fawning approach to that Administration. But, at least before this last election, it was not as avid a proponent of Obama as was MSNBC. It seems now though to be trying to beat MSNBC as an Obama cheerleader.

MSNBC is the cable news outlet for NBC, which is owned by GE, a large recipient of government largess in TARP, the Stimulus bill, Cap and Trade, and, likely, health care "reform". When all is said and done, that company will likely benefit more from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress than any other, including some of the firms that did so well with TARP. And, it has Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews, and Rachel Maddow. Need I say more?

That will depend. MSNBC is only in the can as a way of giving Jeffery Immelt of General Electric a way to bash Obama critics.

What's good for Obama is good for GE, which stands to make billions on Obama's green investments. The moment that Obama leaves the GE reservation for any reason whatsoever, MSNBC will launch investigations of the Obama Administration.

So, the dynamic at MSNBC is Immelt telling Obama that as long as Obama is good for GE, he'll have a friend at MSNBC. And it's an implied threat: If Obama doesn't come through for GE, MSNBC will turn on him (they'd retire Olbermann and replace him with Glenn Beck or a reasonable facsimile).

CNN is just Socialist. They do what they're told like good little poodles or they get bitchslapped.

I wrote a comment too full of bitterness and despair to let stand. I'm going back to bed in hopes that this is all just a bad dream, and our news media really doesn't exploit our children this way in support of their politics.

Health care reform is starting to smell an awful lot like land reform by the Soviets in the 1920s-30s and in other communist countries.

In The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet collectivization and the terror-famine, by Robert Conquest, he documents how it all led to the starvation deaths of 7 million (more recent Russian data suggest 20 million).

By the time that happened, kids weren't singing, they were scavenging garbage cans for fish heads and trying to catch cats to eat. But mostly they just withered to skeletons and died, if they weren't eaten themselves.

If you can stomach it, read about how children fared here, pages 285 and on.

This was a private academy, and they had their students sing and dance to a Miley Cyrus song.?Is that correct?I suppose the kids are actually too stupid to learn to debate or give an extemporaneous speech or write a paper.

OTOH, as Insty noted: "Fox News had more people in the all important A25-54 demographic watching their channel at three in the morning(east coast time) than CNN had for the show that leads off their prime time."

Robert the Cook wrote:I suppose this might be an apt observation if a socialist were ever elected to the White House. As it is, it's just plumb stupid.

What is stupid is denying that attempting to nationalize everything in sight is a socialist.Let's see...healthcare, banking, automotive, energy, IT, insurance all lined up for either takeover or massive new controlling regulation.Nothing socialist in all that, eh?

wv: gicer. Someone who adds the food coloring to the ice cube trays on St. Patrick's Day.

I would have to agree that MSNBC's support for any idea that the Left comes up with (Polanksi rape-good!,Letterman sexual harrassment-good!) has to be ideological because everyone knows nobody but the handful of hard-left, aging hippies who can afford cable watch their crappy network.

Watching this choir sing a hymn at the Church of Obama reminds us of how men need meaning and group participation in their lives. The only meaning allowed to these kids is worshipping the State that can now redistribute all rewards to make their lives fun and easy.

I suppose this might be an apt observation if a socialist were ever elected to the White House. As it is, it's just plumb stupid.

Actually its not. Obama admitted he was attracted to such folks in college. His own statements, such as spreading the wealth around are grounded in socialism. Then we have GM, taking over the banks, wanting universal health care, reducing tax breaks for charitable donations, admitting that capital gains cuts generate wealth but are 'fair'. Maybe you find nuance in stuff like that Cookie but I tend to take people at thier word.

Obama has demonstrated by word and deed he is much more comfortable with socialist policies than free market capitalism.

I suppose this might be an apt observation if secret police were coming to your door and dragging you and/or members of your family away to be tortured and imprisoned, and if millions of your countrymen were being murdered or starved to death in a "cultural revolution." As it is, it's just plumb fucking stupid.

To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:

Our country’s stood beside usPeople have sent us aid.Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.Congress, Bush and FEMAPeople across our landTogether have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!

After the song, Mrs. Bush posed for photos with the kids, many of whom were wearing Katrina Kids T-shirts, despite the chilly rain.

Earlier, the First Lady read Will You Be My Friend: A Bunny and Bird Story by Nancy Tafuri. According to a White House pool report, the children sat on the grass as Mrs. Bush read; she sat in a white wrought iron chair, freshly toweled by two Park Service employees.----------

So children from the Katrina-affected states, known collectively as "Katrina Kids", in a non-school-related event, sing a song thanking their country, Congress, Bush, FEMA, and people across the land for their help rebuilding after a major natural disaster.

And this sole event during the eight years President Bush was in office is what the leftists are latching on to as an example of "Bush worship"?

Desperate and pathetic.

(Oh, and check out the comments to get an idea of how the left reacted back then:

The link XWL give is definitely worth watching. The very articulate kid comes out squarely against then Obama health care program.

The link again.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amSqQ5XNaGE&feature=channel

On youtube I found a MSNBC clip where they claimed kids sang about Bush following Katrina, but they didn't show it and Laura Bush was present during the singing. Kids sang to Bush in Israel. Wonder if they would sing to Obama?

"'I suppose this might be an apt observation if secret police were coming to your door...'

We're well on the road, Mr. Cook, well on the road to serfdom."

Oh, I don't doubt it...but this is merely because American political trends of the last several decades are leading us there. Fear of an American police state is not silly; what's silly is the idea that Obama is a raving socialist who, after the glorious years of Gee Dubya Bush's heroic captaining of an ass-kicking red-blooded AMERICA, will single-handedly pervert our course and take us into decadent, leftist tyranny.

Obama is merely the latest in a long line of Presidents who serve the oligarchy, and the oligarchy is in war against us.

I suppose this might be an apt observation if secret police were coming to your door and dragging you and/or members of your family away to be tortured and imprisoned, and if millions of your countrymen were being murdered or starved to death in a "cultural revolution."

I'm surprised at you Cookie. Considering you past comments on the USA, you seemed to have been under the belief that those are the very things that are going on in this country, save millions dying of starvation.

But I don't understand why you're knocking the Chinese. I think Mao favored universal health care. Every cloud has a silver lining and all that.

Hoosier, you've shown yourself in the past to be a careless reader, and here again this is so. I've never asserted that what is going on in America constitutes a Maoist-China style dictatorship where millions of citizens are being arrested and imprisoned or executed. What I fear and see is that we are becoming ever more authoritarian and militarized, and we heading toward a full-blown police state if present trends are not arrested. We're also becoming ever more callous and brutal simply as people; that we can watch videos of people being tased, or read accounts of such things, and react with either a "ho-hum" attitude or, worse, a response that "the bastard(s) deserved it," is woeful illustration of the coarsening of our values, the diminishing of our respect for human rights and simple human decency...not to mention a respect for the rule of law that requires the law makers to be as accountable to it as any of us.

Obama is merely the latest in a long line of Presidents who serve the oligarchy, and the oligarchy is in war against us.

I have to agree with this one.

The ease with which the bankers moved, and are still moving, between wall street top jobs and government is alarming.

And before you think of Robert Rubin, Paulsen, Bolten, Raines, and Gorelick, here is Rham Emanuel's bio on Wiki

"After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration and became an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort), where he worked until 2002.[29]

"In 1999, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office. Emanuel made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-year stint as a banker, according to Congressional disclosures."

Hoosier, you've shown yourself in the past to be a careless reader, and here again this is so.

And Cookie, you have shown yourself to be ignorant of history, particularly of this nation's history in which we have walked down the path of an authoritarian police state much father under the likes of Lincoln and FDR than Bush or Obama could even imagine. Remarkably we not only survived but ended up with radical societal changes like Civil Rights, Universal Suffrage and the like.

You seem to get weak in the knees over a couple morons being tazed when not all that long ago cops were beating the living shit out of peaceful protestors with wooden sticks whereas nowadays masked anarchists can run wild in the streets destroying private property and people like you wring your hands because oh my, the police are being mean. There was also a time when the President of the USA locked the US Constition p and actually imprisoned Congressmen. He also ordered the Regular Army into NYC and put an end to draft riots by shooting down scores of people. I won't even go into the near police state FDR instituted during WW2.

See for those of us adults who actually have some rudimentary knowledge of American history, your getting the vapors over some asshole getting tazed as the sign of the 4th Reich is humorous but honestly, it's getting somewhat tiresome. When they send the cops to my house to confiscate my guns, then you can start pissing your pants.

"Remarkably we not only survived but ended up with radical societal changes like Civil Rights, Universal Suffrage and the like."

Some of the very things your ilk most vehemently objected to and would love to roll back today.

As a careless observer, you focus on details; the reflexive tasing of non-violent citizens by police is merely the symptom of larger and more subterranean shifts in our social structure. Yes, we have had periods in the past of more overt authoritarian brutality in our country, but the victims of this brutality were very well aware of the war being waged against them. Today, the war is fought covertly, and we have been diverted by bread and circuses for so long that the victims of the oligarchy today actually identify with their masters. People of modest financial means often see themselves as being in the upper echelons of income earners and thus see policies that benefit the rich as being right and just; we have been bewitched by our false affluence--false because it is financied by our indebtedness--and we do not see the reality that we are serfs, essentially, and our masters serve us not at all but merely keep us beguiled and benumbed.

Even as you think we're free, a massive surveillance state is being erected us and we are all subjects of that surveillance; even as you think you're free, we have been moved in just a few short years to believing that torture is not torture and that indefinite detention is okay, as long as the feds say the detainees are "terrists" (sic). We accept lies as truth and see dark as light. We applaud the torture and murder of people around the world but view the proposal of making health care accessible to all as a harbinger of the coming of Mao.

The sort of mass brutality of a Mao or a Stalin may not be necessary here, as many of us are already mentally colonized and see our debasement as liberty.

Yep, the southern Democrats, who are the Republicans of today. They were Democrats not because they held any sort of "liberal" leanings, but because their hated enemy, Lincoln, had been a Republican. There were simply the opposition party to the party of Lincoln.

It was a Texas Democrat, LBJ, who pushed to insure the bill was passed.

And I suspect you know that very well, meaning you're the mendacious sort; untrustworthy and lacking integrity.

This is not about parties, but about the regressive mindset of those who objected to women's suffrage, to civil rights, etc. It is people of this same mindset today who object to universal healthcare, and who see any slight tremblings of progressive-lite policy initiatives as whipmarks of leftist tyranny.

Elitist private school students -- who pays attention to any of them. Further, Ron Clark was played by Matthew Perry in the made-for-TV movie about him. Matthew-freakin'-Perry -- how marginalized can you get?

Some of the very things your ilk most vehemently objected to and would love to roll back today.

Oh fuck off Cookie and I say that with full sincerity. You have no clue what my 'ilk' is you simpleton. You clearly have your head so far up your rectum or are simply comfortable living in a fantasy land where jackbooted stormtroopers are lurking just around the corner to steal away all that is righteous and true.

"Name one southern Democrat Congressman who filibustered Civil rights in the 1960s who is currently a Republican Congressman."

Oh, for Pete's sake! I'm talking about the party constituency, not the specific Congressmen! Are any of those guys still alive, much less in Congress, (Byrd aside)? The southern dems of several decades ago are the same people with the same thinking--as a group--who make up the Republican party today.

I grew up in the South during the era of the passage of the Civil Rights Act and afterwards. Yes, the south has come a long way, but there are still many "good ole' boys" down there, and I well remember the days of Lester Maddox and George Wallace and their divisive racial rhetoric.

In any case, my point was that the south had traditionally been a stronghold of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, had been formed expressly to end slavery and so had never been predominant in the south. Southerners, as most of us do, registered in the party of their forebears. However, beginning in the 70s, the party complexion of the south began to change from predominantly Democrat to predominantly Republican. There are surely many factors that contributed to this change, but the political perspective of the southern dems was always conservative and thus more comparable to the Republican perspective of today.

To equate the Democrats of the early 60s who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act with Democrats of more liberal bent then or now is a false comparison.

Cook: 'All the bad Democrats are now Republicans, except Sen. Byrd, whom we skip, and all the Good Democrats are even better and we grew up in the South so we know what we're talking about (even though we didn't speak up then)'.

Cook: 'All the bad Democrats are now Republicans, except Sen. Byrd, whom we skip, and all the Good Democrats are even better and we grew up in the South so we know what we're talking about (even though we didn't speak up then)'.

Interesting claim. The party founded on abolishing slavery, and which had been against slavery, Jim Crow, etc., and voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is now, all of a sudden, the party of segregation and racism. And the party that was founded by slave owners, opposed abolition in both the North and the South, practiced Jim Crow, lynched Blacks, resegregated the White House, and had a much larger percentage vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is, all of a sudden, the non-racist party. Oh, did I mention that Al Gore, Sr., some distant relative of the Goracle, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Or that former Klan leader Harry Byrd also voted against it, and is the President Pro Tem of the Senate right now?

"Cook: 'All the bad Democrats are now Republicans, except Sen. Byrd, whom we skip, and all the Good Democrats are even better and we grew up in the South so we know what we're talking about (even though we didn't speak up then)'.

Is that right?"

I cant imagine you even think you're making a point here...you're just babbling to hear yourself babble, right?